Based on the numbers, the teams that get the most calls (Braves and Brewers) got one extra called strike a game on average. Teams lowest on the list (Indians, Pirates, Mariners) would average maybe 1 or 2 non strike calls a game.

I think it's a bit too general to say that teams on bad teams don't get the calls. The Brewers got the most but were barely .500. The D-backs were high on the list and were .500. The Tigers, Rays, and A's were all playoff teams that were in the bottom part of the list.

The author also seems to put a lot of weight in who is catching and how that plays into it. Maybe the Pirates will get more calls this year with Russell Martin catching as opposed to Rod Barajas. You've also get different umpire tendencies and how different pitches will be called based on their movement. There are many variables outside of "bad teams don't get calls."

According to Max Marchi’s work on The Hardball Times presented earlier this year, Barajas is one of the game’s very best pitch framers. Among starting catchers, only Russell Martin and Brian McCann do better in that area, which was pretty much impossible to evaluate before PITCHf/x data came along.

The Yankees seem to be okay at getting favorable calls even without Russell Martin.

And really, once an umpire establishes that a pitcher will get calls off the plate, it forces hitters to swing at those pitches. Conversely if a pitcher isn't getting those corners he has to come into the middle of the plate. For someone like Maholm who lacks overpowering stuff this is huge. He can't live by putting balls over the middle of the plate. He has to paint corners and keep hitters off-balance. If he's not getting squeezed and is getting an inch or two off the plate he's almost unhittable. So saying "one or two calls a game" is undervaluing the effect of umps favoring certain teams.

When the teams with a significant edge are popular teams and Bud's team, and the teams significantly harmed are bad teams, it sure looks like umpires call strikes and balls based on the jersey. Baseball could fix this with robot umps and electronic strike zone calling, but then they wouldn't be able to help make sure teams they like succeed and teams that aren't big draws drop dead.

If you compare the starting pitchers for both teams you see basically the same calls, with the strikes outside the zone coming in the same spot. That just means the umpire had a certain strike zone.

One or two pitches a game does not establish a strike zone for an umpire. It takes more than that. This is an extremely small set of circumstances that you're dealing with. It basically boils down to 2-3 pitches in a game. That does not make a conspiracy. Even if it did, and I grant everything you are saying, how much of an effect would it have on a game? Little to none.

I do agree that the simple thing to do would be to have electronic strike zones. The players union would never go for that, nor would the umps. Those are both much bigger factors than the Man keeping the little teams down.

The thing that keeps the little teams down is that they don't have owners who want to change. They are fine raking in the money and don't really care to make any type of substantial change.

You're right, an umpire with varying strike zones that consistently hurt or favor certain teams would have no impact on a game. Just look at tonight's Pirate game- the ump's had a brutal strike zone and Pirates hitters have been forced to swing at bad pitches because the ump is giving the Cards a wide zone. It's amazing how certain teams always have catchers who are great at framing pitches, or how a catcher who is well respected for his defense all of a sudden can't buy a call once he changes teams.

Little teams are kept down because certain teams can have $100M worth of payroll on the disabled list and still have $100M of talent playing while those smaller teams can't afford to make a single mistake or else they end up side-drained into mediocrity like Minnesota. It's hard to have perspective when your team can simply sign Youkilis for $12M because the A-Rod deal was a colossal mistake and not miss a beat.

Give me a break about perspective. just because I'm a Yankees fan doesn't mean I don't know how screwed up the financials are. I also know that when small market owners had chances to do something about it they held out their hands, accepted money, and accepted losing.

How would you fix the problem? Big market teams are playing within the financial rules that all the owners accepted. What makes the small and mid market teams say, I care more about level financial playing fields than I do about lining my pocket?

The umpire issue you're talking about is, at most, minuscule, even based on the stats and sites you linked.

MWB wrote:Give me a break about perspective. just because I'm a Yankees fan doesn't mean I don't know how screwed up the financials are. I also know that when small market owners had chances to do something about it they held out their hands, accepted money, and accepted losing.

How would you fix the problem? Big market teams are playing within the financial rules that all the owners accepted. What makes the small and mid market teams say, I care more about level financial playing fields than I do about lining my pocket?

The umpire issue you're talking about is, at most, minuscule, even based on the stats and sites you linked.

Again, if you really think that an umpire expanding the strike zone has little effect, I don't know what to tell you. To borrow from Pat Lackey, who wrote last night:

The offense was quite good, even with home plate umpire Brian O'Nora's terrible strike zone that messed with more than one at-bat (off the top of my head, both Pedro Alvarez and Andrew McCutchen took early-count strikes that were several inches off of the plate, which necessitated bad two-strike swings at pitches well out of the strike zone with runners on base at points in the game where a comeback seemed somewhat feasible).

Here's the chart for the Alvarez AB:

Here's the McCutchen AB:

Once an umpire expands the strike zone, it puts the hitter between a rock and a hard place of choosing whether to take a pitch that should be a strike but isn't or chase a pitch he can't hit but has to swing at since he's behind in the count and can't afford to strike out. The fact that it's done under the canard of pitch-framing makes it even more galling.

Rocco wrote:Once an umpire expands the strike zone, it puts the hitter between a rock and a hard place of choosing whether to take a pitch that should be a strike but isn't or chase a pitch he can't hit but has to swing at since he's behind in the count and can't afford to strike out. The fact that it's done under the canard of pitch-framing makes it even more galling.

First, using Pedro Alvarez as a barometer for pitch selection is a little suspect. However, let's look at the Pirates' pitchers compared to the Cards' starter. When you compare the charts you can see that the -1 to -1.5 pitch, basically above 2.0, was being called a strike. Pitches on the -.9 to -.7 (basically in the zone) but below 2.0 were not being called strikes, for either team. One big difference is that the Cards' players were swinging and putting into play or fouling off those pitches, while the Pirates' were not as much. So maybe it's the Pirates' hitters and their lack of adaption that has something to do with this as well.